OBL’s Argument (2): Gomorrah

On my Twitter feed recently, among commemorations of the Austro-Hungarian declarations of July 28, 1914, now recognized as the beginning of World War I, another anniversary was also briefly noted: Of Operation Gomorrah, on July 28, 1943, an aerial bombardment of Hamburg with incendiary munitions that ignited a firestorm leading to an estimated 42,000 civilians killed and the “de-housing” of 800,000 more. Royal Air Force Chief Marshal Arthur T. “Bomber” Harris had targeted the “workers” of the city as integral to the functioning of the German war machine, and over the course of three raids, his forces “got everything right.”

With events like the firebombing of Hamburg in mind, we may, to say the least, quite reasonably conclude that a world in which people like ourselves were never to be targeted, rather than targeted on purpose, would be a safer world, at least for us. We today recoil at the images, the ones that happen to make it to our TV screens and timelines, of desperate men, women, and children under attack at a hospital or school – or one hundred-story office building. To be “against that” poses no immediate difficulties for us, and the feeling of having spoken out or stood up “against that” will be relatively insusceptible to second thought.

Hussein Ibish, among the most eloquent spokespeople we have for modern liberalism as a value system, and in relation to the Middle East, captures this spirit of righteous and unquestionable second-thoughtlessness in a column written specifically against “disturbing grey areas” in our ideas of justice in war:

Simply asserting that one had a legitimate overriding intention (killing an “enemy combatant”), and that this renders moot the predictable if not inevitable consequences (the deaths of non-combatants), is repugnant to reason and universal human values.

Although obviously “better” than deliberate mass murder for its own sake, the moral validity of such arguments will be rejected by most people with indignation and contempt. Predictable, inevitable consequences are an essential criterion for culpability in the deaths of innocents.

Ibish would not be dismayed at being lined up in the opposition to Bin Laden – like almost everyone else. The problem is that everyone is rarely right – or, when almost everyone asserts a moral precept, it will almost always be because everyone feels the force of its opposite. We want to believe that “civilian combatant” is an oxymoron, if not an obscenity. According to Osama Bin Laden, Bomber Harris, and more than a few others – or at some point or another everyone, including Mr. Ibish – it is, or at least at significant moments in the history of a people will tend to be, a redundancy.

Home Page  Public Email  Twitter  Facebook  YouTube  Github   

Writing since ancient times, blogging, e-commercing, and site installing-designing-maintaining since 2001; WordPress theme and plugin configuring and developing since 2004 or so; a lifelong freelancer, not associated nor to be associated with any company, publication, party, university, church, or other institution.

Posts in this series

0 comments on “OBL’s Argument (2): Gomorrah

Commenting at CK MacLeod's

We are determined to encourage thoughtful discussion, so please be respectful to others. We also provide a set of Commenting Options - comment/commenter highlighting and ignoring, and commenter archives that you can access by clicking the commenter options button (). Go to our Commenting Guidelines page for more details, including how to report offensive and spam commenting.

    2 Pings/Trackbacks for "OBL’s Argument (2): Gomorrah"
    1. […] Freedom from second thought is also provided by the morally supremely convenient notion (or version of the same notion) that government accountability works in one direction only, or, even better, that we can choose which actions of our government or nation with which to identity, which to attribute to somebody else’s political party or faction, and which to blame strictly on those who “commit” or “partake” in them directly. Picking which laws to follow and which not would rely on a similar concept. According to Bin Laden’s thesis, by contrast, all members of a society, including those who opposed or had nothing directly to do with a policy, down to small children, may be held accountable  – or, we are accountable for the law just as we are accountable to the law. According to Bin Laden’s logic, to strike American civilians for correctly adjudicated evils of American policy would be especially just or anyway more justifiable because American policy can be presumed and is presumed by Americans themselves to express and realize their will. […]

    2. […] that might have been preferred by the losers. The authors of the incineration of Hamburg were, as we have seen, far from hesitant about returning to the prophetic sources, and a parallel or perhaps the same […]

    Commenter Ignore Button by CK's Plug-Ins

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *



    Noted & Quoted

    TV pundits and op-ed writers of every major newspaper epitomize how the Democratic establishment has already reached a consensus: the 2020 nominee must be a centrist, a Joe Biden, Cory Booker or Kamala Harris–type, preferably. They say that Joe Biden should "run because [his] populist image fits the Democrats’ most successful political strategy of the past generation" (David Leonhardt, New York Times), and though Biden "would be far from an ideal president," he "looks most like the person who could beat Trump" (David Ignatius, Washington Post). Likewise, the same elite pundit class is working overtime to torpedo left-Democratic candidates like Sanders.

    For someone who was not acquainted with Piketty's paper, the argument for a centrist Democrat might sound compelling. If the country has tilted to the right, should we elect a candidate closer to the middle than the fringe? If the electorate resembles a left-to-right line, and each voter has a bracketed range of acceptability in which they vote, this would make perfect sense. The only problem is that it doesn't work like that, as Piketty shows.

    The reason is that nominating centrist Democrats who don't speak to class issues will result in a great swathe of voters simply not voting. Conversely, right-wing candidates who speak to class issues, but who do so by harnessing a false consciousness — i.e. blaming immigrants and minorities for capitalism's ills, rather than capitalists — will win those same voters who would have voted for a more class-conscious left candidate. Piketty calls this a "bifurcated" voting situation, meaning many voters will connect either with far-right xenophobic nationalists or left-egalitarian internationalists, but perhaps nothing in-between.

    Comment →

    Understanding Trump’s charisma offers important clues to understanding the problems that the Democrats need to address. Most important, the Democratic candidate must convey a sense that he or she will fulfil the promise of 2008: not piecemeal reform but a genuine, full-scale change in America’s way of thinking. It’s also crucial to recognise that, like Britain, America is at a turning point and must go in one direction or another. Finally, the candidate must speak to Americans’ sense of self-respect linked to social justice and inclusion. While Weber’s analysis of charisma arose from the German situation, it has special relevance to the United States of America, the first mass democracy, whose Constitution invented the institution of the presidency as a recognition of the indispensable role that unique individuals play in history.

    Comment →

    [E]ven Fox didn’t tout Bartiromo’s big scoops on Trump’s legislative agenda, because 10 months into the Trump presidency, nobody is so foolish as to believe that him saying, “We’re doing a big infrastructure bill,” means that the Trump administration is, in fact, doing a big infrastructure bill. The president just mouths off at turns ignorantly and dishonestly, and nobody pays much attention to it unless he says something unusually inflammatory.On some level, it’s a little bit funny. On another level, Puerto Rico is still languishing in the dark without power (and in many cases without safe drinking water) with no end in sight. Trump is less popular at this point in his administration than any previous president despite a generally benign economic climate, and shows no sign of changing course. Perhaps it will all work out for the best, and someday we’ll look back and chuckle about the time when we had a president who didn’t know anything about anything that was happening and could never be counted on to make coherent, factual statements on any subject. But traditionally, we haven’t elected presidents like that — for what have always seemed like pretty good reasons — and the risks of compounding disaster are still very much out there.

    Comment →
    CK's WP Plugins


    Extraordinary Comments

    CK's WP Plugins